Great Northern Railway Bill, 1958—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass)

I assume most Senators are already fully aware of the circumstances which necessitated the introduction of this Bill. The object of the Bill is to facilitate the amalgamation of the G.N.R. and C.I.E. undertakings. It is very largely a machinery Bill and many of its clauses are very technical in character. Senators will remember that the decision to acquire the G.N.R. undertaking from the old Great Northern Company jointly, as between the Government here and the Government in Belfast, followed upon the development of a situation in which the old company said they could not carry on the undertaking because of the heavy financial losses they were incurring.

After negotiations spread over some years, an agreement was made to acquire the undertaking jointly and to pay £4,500,000 for it. That agreement, which was concluded in 1953, provided for the setting up of a joint board and for the division of the losses on the undertaking and its capital expenditure equally between the two authorities. From the date on which that change took place, the date on which the joint board was set up, namely, the 30th September, until the end of September last year—that is, the last date for which the audited accounts of the concern are available—the total losses of the G.N.R., including interest payable to the two areas on capital liability and on payments which were made to meet losses and for capital expenditure, have been almost £4,000,000. Of that sum, our share was £1.4 million. In addition capital expenditure of £963,000 was incurred, of which we met £674,000.

In 1955, the Six County Minister of Commerce wrote to my predecessor here and pointed out that, in view of the heavy losses the undertaking was incurring, he was proposing to close certain of the cross-Border lines. The Government here resisted the proposed closure, and, in accordance with the terms of the 1953 agreement, that matter was referred to the chairmen of the two transport tribunals. There was a special inquiry, after which the two chairmen submitted divergent reports in September, 1956. When these reports had been received, the Minister of Commerce in Belfast indicated his intention to proceed with the closure of these cross-Border lines, notwithstanding the opposition expressed here. He also indicated at that time the probability that the Portadown and Derry line, which is almost entirely situated within the Six County area, would be closed. But later, following discussions which I had with him in Belfast last year, he agreed to defer that step for a period of two years at least. He indicated his intention then of giving notice, in accordance with the terms of the 1953 agreement, to terminate that agreement on the expiration of the five-year period mentioned in it. That period will expire in September next. The common services on these three cross-Border lines, which were the subject of the inquiry held by the chairmen of the transport tribunals, were in fact closed in September last.

I stated in the Dáil on a previous occasion that the Government here would have preferred to maintain an agreement for the joint operation of the G.N.R. system, even the remnants of the system left when these lines had been closed down, or indeed, even if the whole system was reduced to the single line from Dublin to Belfast. But our wishes in that regard could not prevail against the decision of the other party to the agreement. The termination of the 1953 agreement makes it impossible, as I am sure Senators will agree, to continue the G.N.R. as a separate undertaking.

The Bill provides for the amalgamation of the G.N.R. undertaking within the State, excluding Dundalk Works, with C.I.E. and for the definitive transfer of Dundalk Works to the recently formed company, Dundalk Engineering Works Limited. The Bill is concerned solely with the administrative arrangements required to facilitate that amalgamation and does not relate to the wider issues of transport policy which were recently discussed on the Transport Bill. Simultaneous legislation was promoted in Belfast providing for the amalgamation of the part of the G.N.R. undertaking in the Six Counties area with the U.T.A. Train services on the Dublin-Belfast line will continue and will be operated under an arrangement between the U.T.A. and C.I.E.

Lengthy negotiations have taken place between the Ministry of Commerce, Belfast, and my Department regarding the basis on which the assets and liabilities of the G.N.R. Board should be divided between the two areas. The outcome of these discussions is contained in the draft agreement which is scheduled to the Bill and which will be executed following enactment of this legislation. The agreement aims at broad equity in the division of the undertaking rather than laying down accounting details which can best be settled at operating level between C.I.E. and the U.T.A.

The terms of the agreement represent to a considerable extent an unscrambling of the 1953 agreement and of the agreed scheme drawn up under it for the apportionment of losses. The approach has been that the assets and liabilities should as far as possible be apportioned according to their location and that items in common use or of common interest should be divided equitably having regard to the needs of C.I.E. or U.T.A. in operating the parts of the undertaking falling to them. In this way lands, premises and chattels situated or normally used in one area will be allocated to that area. Railway rolling stock will in general be appointed equally, the particular units falling to either area being agreed by C.I.E. and U.T.A. The road passenger and road freight service operated by the G.N.R. will fall to us in its entirety.

Stores, materials and other assets and liabilities will be apportioned equally, the particular units falling to either area being agreed by C.I.E. and U.T.A. Staff, including former members of the staff on superannuation, will be divided on the basis of residence. The pension funds will be divided actuarially on the basis of residence of the members.

No permanent arrangement has been settled in relation to the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee which is jointly owned by the G.N.R. Board and the British Transport Commission. The position of this undertaking is extremely complex and it is possible that separate legislation here and in Britain may be necessary in regard to it. I am satisfied that the basis of division in the scheduled agreement is a fair and equitable one. It is the result of protracted bargaining conducted, however, in a businesslike but friendly spirit and I can recommend it to the House.

As regards the Bill itself, its terms in relation to the amalgamation of the G.N.R. undertaking within the State with C.I.E. follow the same lines as the 1950 Act which provided for the amalgamation of C.I.E. and the Grand Canal Company. Unlike C.I.E. there has been no comprehensive modernisation of the G.N.R. undertaking and much of the G.N.R. rail rolling stock and equipment is antiquated. In the circumstances it is proposed that the amalgamation should be carried out without any increase in the capital liability of C.I.E. This is tantamount to writing off the capital liability of the G.N.R. Board of £2,250,000 representing our half share of the acquisition price of the undertaking in 1953 together with our share of moneys advanced since 1953 to finance capital expenditure which by September next should amount to about £770,000. In addition our share of the accumulated losses of the G.N.R. Board since 1953, which by September next should amount to about £1,867,000, is likewise being written off.

All staff resident in the Twenty-Six Counties and employed by the G.N.R. Board immediately before the transfer date will become C.I.E. staff. Compensation provisions identical with those in the Transport Bill, 1958, will apply to transferred G.N.R. staff. In addition, provision is made for the compensation on the same terms of employees suffering loss of employment or worsening of conditions as a consequence of the amalgamation of the two undertakings. Provision is also made for the preservation of the existing pension rights of G.N.R. staff transferring to C.I.E. In the case of wages staff, a due share of the pension funds will be transferred to C.I.E. C.I.E. have decided to become a subscriber to the British Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund in respect of G.N.R. salaried staff who are members of that fund. This will require special British legislation.

The Railway Clearing System Superannuation Corporation who control the fund have indicated their willingness to co-operate and it is hoped that it will be possible to secure enactment of the necessary British legislation next year. Meanwhile provision is made in the Bill preserving the status quo whereby G.N.R. staff who are members of the fund will be transferred to C.I.E. on secondment only. When the necessary British legislation has been enacted and the G.N.R. Board dissolved the existing obligations of the G.N.R. Board under the fund will be binding on C.I.E.

I think the Seanad is already aware of the efforts which are being made to maintain the level of employment at Dundalk Works. One of the most serious consequences of the division of the undertaking which was feared was its effect upon the level of the employment there. We decided to try to save valuable time in dealing with that situation by anticipating the termination of the 1953 Agreement in September next; with the consent of the Six County Authorities, the works at Dundalk were leased to the new company set up for the purpose—the Dundalk Engineering Works, Limited—in January last. This Bill makes provision for the definitive transfer of the works to that company.

The salaried staff at the works at Dundalk are at present seconded by the G.N.R. Board to the company. The majority of that staff have general railway gradings and common seniority rights with corresponding grades elsewhere in the system. They will retain their G.N.R. employment and transfer to C.I.E. on the amalgamation. If they are not required by C.I.E., it is to be assumed their services will formally be dispensed with, which will entitle them to compensation. However, it is anticipated that they will continue in their employment with the Dundalk Engineering Works, in which case their compensation will be abated for as long as they are so employed by that company or by any State-sponsored body or local authority, in the same way as any other C.I.E. staff who become redundant.

The wage grade staff at Dundalk have already been transferred definitively to the new company. These staffs were recruited and employed solely at the works. Their future lies with the new industrial developments planned at Dundalk. I am sure Senators are aware of the efforts made by the Board of the Dundalk Engineering Works, Limited, to provide continued employment for all the wage grade staff who have been transferred to them. The Bill provides for the preservation of the pension rights of former G.N.R. wages staff employed by the new company and an appropriate share of the G.N.R. pension fund will be transferred to that company.

The Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann includes provision for the compensation of staff of the Irish Railway Clearing House who may suffer loss of employment or worsening of conditions as a result of the disappearance of the G.N.R. as a separate undertaking. As Senators are aware the Clearing House is a statutory body whose main function is the settlement on behalf of Irish and British transport and shipping companies of the accounts of through traffic. The provision in the Bill has been inserted at the request of the Clearing House which will bear the cost of the compensation.

I should not like to conclude this statement, explaining the provisions of the Bill, without paying a tribute to the joint board who have carried on the undertaking since 1953. They had not by any means an easy task. Indeed, they took over the running of the G.N.R. at a period which, I think, could fairly be described as one of the most critical in the history of railways in this country. I am sure all Senators will regret the disappearance of the G.N.R. as a separate undertaking after almost a century of existence. I bring this Bill to the House with very considerable reluctance but, as I have already pointed out, we have no option in the matter. I hope Senators will recognise the Bill as a genuine effort to meet in a fair and reasonable way the many interests which were affected by a very difficult but inevitable situation. It is in the expectation that they will do so that I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Murphy

This Bill is a necessary measure. It became inevitable because of the policy of the Government in the Six Counties in regard to public transport there. I would not, however, interpret it as any indication of a lessening of co-operation between the two Governments. Owing to the closure of the secondary lines of the G.N.R., I do not think the Government in Belfast had any real alternative but to proceed as they have done. This is particularly so because of the unfortunate clash between the G.N.R. and the U.T.A. in the area there. It has been impossible—why, I can never discover—to get co-operation between the two undertakings. Indeed, I know that when those two undertakings proposed some years ago to integrate their salaried staff in the Six Counties, the common salaried staff—and when that was accepted by the trade union representing that staff—they never proceeded with the integration; nobody knows why. However, it is not a matter for this House.

The point I am making is that I do not think the Government in Northern Ireland had any real alternative but to proceed as they did to force integration of public transport in the territory and to see to it that the G.N.R., as a separate undertaking, disappeared. Again, they had the difficulty—I am sure the Minister will appreciate this—that, as long as the G.N.R. continued as a separate organisation, equipment being used by the railways as the G.N.R. in the Six Counties was being maintained and manufactured outside their territory. They already had their own workshops at U.T.A. in Duncrue Street. I think any Government would be anxious that all possible work should be done in their territory, providing employment for their citizens. That has created a very difficult problem for the Minister.

The point I want to make is that I would not regard it as an act of nonco-operation on the part of the Northern Ireland Government to proceed as they have done. The problem which has been created for the Government here is the problem of Dundalk as a town and supported largely by railway workshops. It is obvious that, with the disappearance of the G.N.R. as a separate undertaking, with the disappearance of the work being done up to now for the G.N.R. in Northern Ireland as well as here, unemployment was bound to occur if definite action was not taken by the Government.

I know that what the Minister has done will be criticised. It was a political risk, I suppose, but I think— though I do not agree with him politically—it was courageous and prudent to act as he did towards the end of last year by setting up the Dundalk Engineering Works and giving it nine months' opportunity of establishing itself before the final break came. It would have been wrong to sit back and let things drift and in effect say: "It is the fault of the Government in Belfast; we cannot do anything about it." The problem is a very real one for the employees in Dundalk. The vast majority of them are skilled operatives, in receipt of trade union rates of pay and in steady employment, and they have a tradition of working with a railway workshop. It is going to be difficult for them and it is going to be difficult for the management of the new company to establish itself and as far as possible to get orders outside the country. I hope, and I believe all Senators hope, that their efforts will be successful and that not alone will they continue to provide employment for the 1,000-odd workers in Dundalk, but if possible, that they will extend that.

The other problem which has been created for the Minister is the question of public transport in Donegal. That will become critical when the line between Portadown and Derry closes, as seems to be probable within the next couple of years. When that closes the County Donegal Railway, which is largely a railway in our territory, will have no rail connection. It will run through Strabane and there will be no junction there for the trans-shipment of its goods. Inevitably, the County Donegal Railways will then have to cease operations and it will leave the problem of what is to be done with regard to public transport in that county.

In the northern half of that county, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway is now solely a road undertaking, providing a very good service from Derry into the northern half of Donegal. You have the County Donegal Railways providing a rail service, and a road freight service to some extent, and as well you have the Great Northern providing a road passenger service for most of the southern part of Donegal. It is obvious that this situation cannot continue indefinitely, indeed the surprising thing is that it has continued like this up to now.

There was a suggestion from various quarters in the Dáil that Donegal should have its own separate transport organisation. I do not know whether they would combine with Dublin City and between them provide something, but I find some difficulty in seeing the sense of such an arrangement. It would seem, anyway, to provide a problem for the trade unions because there is an historic differential between the rates paid in County Donegal and the rates paid to the public transport employees in the other 25 counties of our Republic. If the suggestion is that a separate organisation should be set up in County Donegal, and it should pay 10 per cent. less to its employees than that paid to their colleagues in the rest of the country, then I do not think that position could be accepted.

It was accepted up to now because of the insecurity of the whole position, because of the uncertainty and because of the fact that as year follows year obviously the position cannot continue and nobody is anxious to topple over these organisations. If there is to be, as there will have to be, a re-organisation, then I suggest that the employees working in County Donegal should be paid the same rates and should not be differentiated against, any more than their colleagues in Clare, or Kerry, or the rest of the country.

Having said that I recognise that there are going to be difficulties, for example, in relation to a service between Derry and the northern part of Donegal. Even though that part is in the Republic, in respect of trade generally it is practically in the Six Counties. Or should I put it the other way, that Derry is part of Donegal? The undertaking is providing a very efficient service and is based in Derry and its employees are Six County residents. Quite frankly, I do not know how an easy solution, which will not hurt anybody, can be found to this problem. It seems to me that the obvious course is to integrate the transport in Donegal with C.I.E. and try to deal with the staff who will be displaced, as we have dealt with staff affected in that way before. Perhaps another solution will be found but the warning which I want to sound is based on differential treatment against public transport employees in Donegal. I do not think it would be acceptable and certainly it would not be a happy solution.

In regard to the integration of the staff of the Great Northern here with C.I.E., I use the word "integration" on purpose because I hope to see a marriage of the two undertakings. The Great Northern staff have nothing to be ashamed of in relation to their employment, or in relation to what is happening to them. They have been an efficient and loyal staff and it is not their fault that the G.N.R. is now disappearing after 100 years of existence and that they are being merged with the bigger brother, C.I.E. I hope they will go in with their heads up and not be ashamed of what has happened, and that they will in turn be welcomed by their colleagues in C.I.E. The Minister may know that this sort of merger is always a bit difficult. We still get the old loyalties as between the Midland Great Western people and the Great Southern people in C.I.E. If somebody does not think very much of somebody else, he says: "Well, he is an old Midland man anyway and what can you expect?"

I hope in the joining of the staffs of C.I.E. and the G.N.R. that there will be a very happy get-together and that nobody will feel that he has anything to be ashamed of, or that nobody will feel that he is being wronged by intruders coming in.

There is just one other aspect to which I want to refer and it is again on the question of staff. The G.N.R., as we know, has been in difficulties for quite some time and because of those difficulties, and because of the fact that the undertaking was obviously going to disappear, there has been a delay, understandably I suppose, in doing anything with regard to pensions of the wage grades employees. The Minister will know that, in C.I.E. after a great deal of difficulty, approved pensions have been agreed upon for the wage grades employees. If the G.N.R. were not going to disappear, if it were not in the difficulty it has been in, it would be natural to suppose that similar improvements would be extended to the wage grades employees of the G.N.R. in this State.

It has been the practice that employees of the G.N.R. in this State are paid similar rates and enjoy similar conditions to their colleagues in the C.I.E.; and, in turn, the employees in the North enjoy the same rates as their colleagues on the U.T.A. That practice in dealing with the G.N.R. has been accepted by the trade unions and the management and it has worked well. However, owing to the pending dissolution of the G.N.R., nothing has been done in regard to the pensions of the wage grades in this State. We now have the position that the wage grades people on the G.N.R. are being pensioned off with a pension of maybe 10/- a week after 40 or 50 years of loyal service, with a 10/- bonus, while their colleagues in C.I.E. are being pensioned off at the moment with an improved pension of 51/- a week. That is not a very princely sum, as one can imagine, but to a man who is getting only £1 a week there is a vast difference and it means a great deal to him.

Most of those people understood that they would be allowed to stay on in the service past the retirement age, until there had been this merger with C.I.E., until they could benefit under the new pension rate in operation in C.I.E. Unfortunately, that has not happened. I suppose it was natural for the management of G.N.R. to dispense with the services of those people, possibly because they felt that if they kept them on until they had been merged, a claim for compensation might arise. Nevertheless, I am underlining the fact that these people are not in that respect being treated equally with their colleagues in C.I.E. When working, they had been given the same inadequate rates of pay: when pensioned off, they get even more inadequate pensions. I would ask the Minister to represent to C.I.E. that, in the particular circumstances, they should be sympathetic and give ex gratia payments to bring the payments of those people up to the same level as the pensions which are paid by C.I.E.

Mr. Louis Walsh

This Bill which the Minister is anxious to have passed by the Oireachtas is another example of the evils of the monstrosity of Partition and the serious consequence which it has for the economic position of our people on both sides of the unnatural frontier which is drawn across the face of this country. The G.N.R., which was once so excellently run and provided a most satisfactory service, was seriously affected by Partition and in recent years by great competition from the U.T.A. road service in Northern Ireland. It appears that the Northern Government have favoured the road authority at the expense of the railway, at least in the area under their control. If this is the position and if the threat to close down the Portadown-Derry section is put into effect, it will undoubtedly be a severe blow to County Donegal and to the large hinterland around the towns of Dungannon, Omagh, Strabane, and Derry City.

It also follows that the present reasonably satisfactory service which is being provided, although at greater expense, by bus from Omagh to Pettigo, Ballyshannon and Bundoran, cannot continue. Long distance travel by bus is certainly more expensive than travel by rail and it is not so attractive particularly to the tourist. I join, therefore, with the Minister in his hope, expressed by him in the other House, that on further consideration by the U.T.A., when they have taken over the section of the line in Northern Ireland, they will agree that it would be a wrong decision to abandon the Portadown-Derry line, in view of the area which this railway serves. I understand, for instance, that there is more freight traffic carried on that section of the line than on the Belfast-Coleraine-Derry line which is run by the U.T.A.

Most of the merchandise traffic for County Donegal originates here and passes through Northern Ireland in sealed wagons without customs examination. The amount of this traffic for the year ended 30th September, 1955, was over 100,000 tons. It is certainly going to be difficult and expensive to deal with this traffic, if it is to be sent via Sligo, and it will involve colossal expenditure in making roads fit to bear that traffic in South Donegal. For instance, I wonder if the trial period of two years which the Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland stated would be the period on the Derry Portadown section is having a fair test, if the proposed change over by the G.N.R. Board to diesel traction is not adopted.

In other countries, increased traffic and reduced operating costs resulted from dieselisation. For instance, a week before the Enniskillen-Belfast line was closed, a diesel coach was put on and that service was regarded as a great improvement on the service which had been in existence prior to that date—but it was then too late. Recently, the U.T.A. put on a diesel train on the Derry to Belfast run via Coleraine and the timetable for that run was reduced by 25 minutes. This, naturally, was putting the line in severe competition with the present Derry-Portadown-Belfast section. The G.N.R. used to take most of the cross-Channel traffic to County Donegal, but much of this is now being diverted to the U.T.A., because they have a train service from Derry to Larne and this has captured a fair amount of the tourists and migratory labour travelling back from England. In November, 1954, I made representations to the G.N.R. board for a diesel train service from Derry to Dublin which would have considerably shortened the journey, particularly in connection with customs examination, as there would be only a limited number of people travelling by diesel coach and, therefore, the customs examination would be much shorter than that on the steam train which connects with the Belfast train at Portadown, which is a very long train.

I also suggested that garage accommodation should be provided at Strabane station for Donegal travellers, as was provided by C.I.E. at Dublin and other principal C.I.E. stations. The railway company replied that no diesel express trains were available, and the position has not improved a great deal since. The present delay in customs examinations at Goraghwood and Dundalk is, at times, undoubtedly aggravating to passengers. The rail journey from Derry to Dublin varies from five hours, 25 minutes to four hours, 40 minutes, while the Enterprise Express, which is non-stop with no customs examination, takes two hours 10 minutes.

In view of the enourmous road expenditure now being embarked on by the northern authorities on the road between Omagh and Derry, a road that runs parallel with the railway, I am inclined to think that the decision to close the line has been to a large extent prejudged by the northern authorities. Obviously, certain construction work which is being carried out there, with large gaps in the road at railway bridges, would seem to indicate the abandonment of this railway. I understand, of course, that most of the money which is being provided for this construction work comes from a Road Fund in Britain.

Even at this late stage, I wonder if the U.T.A. can be induced to give every possible consideration to the preservation of the trunk railway, which is serving so many people north and south of the Border, and which has done such a good job down the years. The dead hand of uncertainty in the G.N.R. has been over this line for some years past. The railway has been allowed to run down and, as the Minister has already stated, the rolling stock was somewhat antiquated, but, I feel, if a dieselisation programme were put into effect, the losses would be considerably reduced. Apparently, the G.N.R. Board considered that diesel operation would go a long way towards eliminating losses and the board, some time ago, welcomed diesel traction and the modernisation of rolling stock, which would effect economies by the expansion of the life of the railway as it would involve fewer sleepers and lower maintenance costs.

I hope that when C.I.E. takes over the section of the line from Dublin to Dundalk the modernisation programme for that section will, at least, be put into effect. It would seem to be logical for the U.T.A. to do likewise so far as the section which they will then have under their control is concerned, in view of the dieselisation programme which they have carried out on their own line between Belfast, Coleraine and Derry.

If County Donegal is to be deprived entirely of a connection with the outside world, as far as rail transport is concerned, I would ask the Minister to consider further the question of developing Donegal ports. Already, Killybegs and Rathmullan have been developed to a considerable extent and there are at present proposals for further improvements to Greencastle pier. In connection with the Inishowen area, I would ask the Minister to be as sympathetic as he can because that area cannot properly be catered for by either Killybegs or Rathmullen.

Mr. Laurence Walsh

I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on his achievements, and I hope the Bill will meet with the success it deserves. Some seven years ago, public representatives in Louth met to consider ways and means of preserving the G.N.R. and providing employment for our citizens. Many suggestions were made and some of the wiser old heads expressed the view that the railways were finished. In the final result of the present situation, it is true that the branch lines, at all events, are finished.

The Minister is to be sincerely congratulated on the very fine job he has made of the replacement arrangements, and I sincerely hope they will go from success to success, and that all citizens in Dundalk will be satisfied when the new Heinkel works are in full production, for which we have to thank the Minister. I hope that when that happens there will be very few Dundalk artisans in the engineering trade left idle.

Mr. S. Lemass

Senator Murphy expressed the view that the termination of the 1953 Agreement was not due to any desire to reduce the arrangements for co-operation between the two areas, but to the emergence of very real difficulties for the Six County authorities. Personally, I should like to think that is so, but I feel the agreement had a significance apart from its practical consequences which gives us reason to regret its disappearance. Certainly I feel this regret personally because of my association with the negotiation of the agreement. I must say, however, that the agreement did not work out as I had anticipated at the time, in particular with regard to the re-equipment of the G.N.R. system on the lines of what has been done for C.I.E., and I am convinced that the growth of the losses on the G.N.R. system are very largely attributable to that fact.

The closure of the Portadown-Derry line would, of course, have quite serious effects upon the transport arrangements for the service of County Donegal as Senator Louis Walsh pointed out. I do not know what the final decision is likely to be. I have expressed the view that if commercial considerations alone will determine the decision as to which line from Belfast will be retained, it seems to me very likely that the Portadown-Derry line would have a fair chance of being reprieved, because I think it is likely to prove to be better located for the generation of traffic than the alternative line. However, the decision will not rest with us.

So far as Donegal is concerned, this Bill does not alter the position in any way except that after the end of September the existing G.N.R. services there will become C.I.E. services operated no doubt with the same buses and the same bus crews, but, nevertheless, under the authority of C.I.E. rather than the G.N.R. Eventually, however, some changes will have to be made there because of the need to deal with the position of the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee and there will be quite considerable changes if the rail link between Donegal and the rest of the Twenty-Six County area should be severed completely by the closing down of the Portadown line.

Senator Murphy referred to the problems that will arise in connection with the integration of the staffs of the G.N.R. and C.I.E. Some of these problems will not be considerable. In so far as the G.N.R. road services are concerned, I should imagine that there will be very few problems at all. It is clear there will be some very intricate problems in connection with the integration of the clerical staffs and there obviously will be some fairly considerable redundancy. In solving these problems and handling any redundancy that may arise, I think it is most desirable that the C.I.E. management should keep in contact and endeavour to proceed in agreement with the trade union organisations representative of the staffs.

It is easy to talk about the problems in a way which suggests that given goodwill they can be caused to disappear. I had the opportunity of getting some glimpse of their complexity and I think it will require a great deal of goodwill and commonsense to handle them. Eventually, I hope to see a completely integrated organisation the members of which in the course of time will forget whether they started under the C.I.E. or the G.N.R. badge.

I recognise, of course, that there is this problem of existing inadequate pension arrangements for G.N.R. wages staff. The intention is that, following on the amalgamation, the G.N.R. wages staff will be brought into the C.I.E. pension scheme that scheme being amended to permit that. The Bill so provides. I expect to receive proposals from C.I.E. in that regard quite soon. I do not want to indicate any personal view as to how it should be done. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised when the recent improvement in C.I.E. pensions was announced to get from some C.I.E. workers objections to the amendment, these workers being apparently willing to forego the prospects of a better pension in the future rather than pay an increased contribution in the present. It is far better that these matters should be settled by those intimately associated with them rather than that I should give any indication of how they should approach their task. The Bill is mainly a machinery Bill. It is very largely completed upon earlier legislation and on that account no very great issue of principle arises on it.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 10 Jul 1958